On 31 Mar 2004 16:17:22 -0800,

SemiScholar <noemail@spambegone.com> wrote in message news:<o37m609q89fg6tvrd8k32f36ikstlnc05r@4ax.com>...

On 31 Mar 2004 09:20:02 -0800,

SemiScholar <noemail@spambegone.com> wrote in message news:<oomj60p3agh6har17n4pgijjpvksv1q9fu@4ax.com>...

On 30 Mar 2004 09:29:55 -0800,

"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<0f5ac.9787$1C1.5212694@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:7jnh60hkbmrllvo9uh91go70bvtolkt88h@4ax.com...

One day there will be no chaplains in Congress and "ceremonial

deism" will be

acknowledged as the discredited ***** that it is.

Just out of interest, why would you want to get rid of chaplains in

Congress?

Taxpayers are paying for people to write and speak religious

prayers.

If chaplain salaries were paid by their churches, there would be

less

objection.

Taxpayers are paying for people to smear feces on the
Virgin, Bob. That's offensive.

I think taxpayers paid to have that art shown, not for its creation.
OTOH, I think that "***** Christ" - a crucifix submerged in the
artist's own urine - was paid for by taxpayer money.

Nahhh... actually, it was just an NEA grant to a museum, which then
doled out protions to various artists. They didn't "pay for" the
production of any specific piece of art, they merely helped to fund
some artists.

True. Of course, I didn't say that the NEA paid for "the production
of any specific piece of art". "***** Christ" was paid for by taxpayer
money.

Serrano, the artist in question, had received $15,000 of public funds
through an award from the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art,
which had received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to
distribute as they saw fit.

But did he receive that money *prior* to the creation of that
particular work of art?

That's my understanding. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

I'm not sure - I looked through a number of articles about it, but
that info didn't jump out at me, and frankly, I don't care enough to
put any more effort into it.

But hey, if you'll give me $15,000 I'll be glad to fill a jar with
***** and send it to you. And I'll put any object you'd like into it -
a crucifix, a picture of Bill Clinton, whatever.

But how much does it *cost* to ***** into a jar and drop a crucifix in
it, anyway?

See above.

So again, US taxpayer money didn't "pay for" that work of art. They

Okay, I see your point of view. Of course the taxpayers didn't say,
"Here's some bucks, now go ***** on a crucifix." The taxpayers paid an
artist; the artist created the work of his choosing.

paid to help an artist pay his bills and eat, and he created that work
of art. It's not as if he wouldn't have created it if he had not
received that money. Money like that goes to the artist not for a
particular project, but just as a grant to help the artist survive,
and then the artist produce whatever he would have produced anyway.
If you want to argue that the taxpayers shouldn't support artists,
that's fine, but it's a different issue.

There are those who argue that.

And I have some sympathy with that. For one thing, I think a lot of
artists understand that it's not a good idea to bite the hand that
feeds you - at least not if you want to keep being fed. Feeding a
Beast is one way to tame it.

And I do have some sympathy with the idea that people should not be
forced to pay for things they find offensive. That means not having
religion in schools, and not having official art. I might think
they're pinheads for squawking about being offended, but I understand
that they ARE offended. So while I completely support the right of
the artist to BE offensive, I don't know that it's necessary that
taxpayers PAY for it.

Can't we all just get along?